One wonders what was the purpose of President Obama’s decision to allow Israel to be skewed at the Security Council?

This president has been known since the start of his presidency to eschew tradition and diverge from established decorum of the office of the presidency.

His actions since becoming a “lame-duck” have been in tandem by enacting many significant new rules and Acts contrary to generations of norms that dictate that during the period between elections and inauguration of a new president the sitting president does not make or start new significant initiatives.

However, all of these divergences from established practices and traditions can be justified by the president trying to promote his agenda and now, mostly, to make it more difficult for his successor to dismantle it.

While I disagree with his agenda and his actions to try to save it, I at least understand him.

US policy of objecting to the Israeli West Bank settlements was well established and known to anyone and everyone who has any interest in this matter. Indeed, by voting to abstain in the Security Council resolution one could be permitted to think that this is a dilution of the strong condemnation of these settlements, which is the usual US policy.

So why? Why throw away 50 years of US policy to prevent Israel from being humiliated and damaged at the Security Council?

That policy was based on the valid assumption that it will be unhelpful to the peace process, as such a resolution will embolden Palestinians and thus, make them less flexible, and on the other side it will push Israelis into a corner, causing them to take undesired actions that will make the peace process even harder than it already is.

So what was the purpose?

There can be only one explanation, which is to settle his private score with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

President Obama is well known to be very arrogant; it now transpires that he is also both vindictive and petulant.

What a sad epithet to a president.